Bush Plans to Let Religious Groups Get Building Aid

He is a pompous jackA$$

Federal Funds to Build Churches

[]he Bush administration's campaign to merge church and state continued last week when it announced plans to allow federal housing money to be used to erect buildings in which religious services occur. Spending taxpayer money to build religious structures is a radical move, and one that defies long-established constitutional precedents. The new policy should be challenged and, if the administration refuses to withdraw it, struck down by the courts.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/opinion/28TUE2.html

Current administration seems to have the idea that everything is permitted till challenged and proven otherwise.

From au's NYTimes article:

This seems like a very important detail that is notably lacking from other comments here.

Okay, tres, an important detail. So what are we looking at here, a church with permanent restrictive covenants?

Perhaps. That something is complicated does not mean it is necessarily unworkable.

And for the record, I'm not championing this idea, I'm just pointing out what the facts are.

Tw
The fact remains the funds will be used to build, repair and otherwise enhance the property of a religious organization. I should point out that that will free up church funds for use on religious activities. It should further be noted that tax dollars will be used by an organization that is already supported by your tax dollar since it pays no tax and therefore nothing for the services it already gets.
I remember reading some years ago that if religious orgasnizations in the city of NY paid taxes on owned property there would never be a budgetary problem. IMO only the Church or Temple should be tax free all other property should be taxed.

And the fact also remains that religious groups have been barred from getting these funds, merely because they are religious groups. That sounds like discrimination to me.

- TW

yeah fer sure, i gots to start up my church of the holy warlock & monday night football, let the boy scouts meet in the basement, Wicca meet in the choir loft and thesosophists raise the devil in the baptismal font while getting the tax money's paid by the southern baptists, catholics and mormons. seems like a fair deal to me cause i am damn efficient when it comes to delivering services.

Tw


Sounds like adhering to the law of the land to me. Regarding discrimination religions rank among the the greatest practitioners, or hadn't you noticed?

au - I understand and respect that you see it that way. I don't. As I have written elsewhere, the 1st Amendment prohibition against establishment of a religion is intended to keep the government from favoring one religion over another, not to bar the government from dealing reasonably with religions, religious organizations, and religious adherents. If the government treats all religions equally, there is no Constitutional problem.

And I would further argue that in a legal sense when the government refuses to deal equitably with religions it has established a de facto religion of its own, albeit a secular one. I know this is a hard concept to get your head around, but think of it this way...

The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion. Why? Answer: because doing so would limit the freedom and access of all other religions. Now, doesn't this strict adherence to the notion of a separation of church and state limit the freedom and access of all other religions in exactly the way establishing an official government religion would?

And try to remember, the Constitution does not require a "separation of church and state". That phrase does not exist in the Constitution or within any amendment. On the issue of religion, the Constitution takes two very simple, reasonable stances:

1) Everyone should be free to practice whatever religion he or she chooses.

2) In order to ensure #1, the government must not establish an official religion.

Tw
We have been through this before. The constitution does not directly specify many things that are deemed to be constitutional or conversely unconstitutional. The USSC makes rulings of that nature on an ongoing basis. You know as well as I that the first amendment to the constitution has been interpreted among other things to call for a separation of Church and State. Pointing out what it says cuts no ice. What it has been interpreted to mean does and is the law of the land.

Which religious groups are implied? If these are not Muslims, I do not see any particular threat in such a step of President Bush.

IMO religious groups are given an unfair advantage by their tax exempt status. In addition, to have the government offer them money which has been gotten thru taxes levied against all its citizens is adding insult to injury.

Well, if this affects the principle of equality of all the citizens, then such a decision is dubious (sorry for having criticized President Bush while not being a citizen of the USA).

I am uncomfortable with the use of public funds to directly aid religious organizations. Still, economies may be realized through reduction of duplicated effort, as in community-centric humanitarian facilities. Great care and discretion would be required to assure equitable, non-preferential distribution of Federal Assistance. That likely is the uncounterable objection to the proposition.



timber

Timber- If you believe that non-preferential distribution is even a possibility, I have a great piece of land to sell you south of Everglades city!

A problem not noted here is that those of a spiritual, or, if you will, religious nature, who are not adherents of any organized sect, and those who are agnostic, and those who are atheists, are required to pay tax money, which can go to groups which they not only do not support, but may well actively oppose. I may be opposed to the notion of an armed police force--but society determines that such an organization is necessary for public safety and the security of all citizens. When a portion of my tax money goes to the support of an armed police force, society is, in effect, saying that i will be required to support that organization, without regard to my belief, because a majority of citizens have determined that police force to be necessary; further, citizens have determined that i can be taxed to support that organization because i enjoy benefits accruing therefrom (greater traffic safety, reduced crime rates, etc.), without regard to my personal animus to an armed police force. Finally, society, in effect, says that these ends can be achieved by no other means consistent with social order, good governmental management and individual qualified freedom.

So, i would like to know how it can be claimed that there is a greater social good such as society implies is available from such an organization as an armed police force arising from my enforced contribution to a religious organization. Armed vigilantees can help us reduce crime; or, at any rate, an argument can be made that such is the case, and said argument would be no more tenuous than the argument that religious organizations can dispense social services, as an aid to those organizations of government which do so now. Preventing armed robbery, or apprehending an armed robber, in a manner consistent with good social order and public safety can be reasonably said to require an armed police force--AND it can further be said that any other means will not be consistent with public safety and good social order. Can it be said that feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, counseling those whose lack of life skills make them a burden society can only be achieved through the disbursement of tax revenues to religious organizations? I'll never be convinced of that.

For those who might suggest that my corollary of armed vigilantees and religious organizations is a stretch, i would point out that both constitute a clear and present danger to my rights--the one to my right to proceed through my daily life unmolested; the other to my right to pursue happiness absent the imposition of the superstitions of others.

Steissd, criticize away. While you post here, you are in the United States. The first amendment to our constitution guarantees your right of free speech. I can assure you that Sharon et al have been, are, and will be criticized here with reckless abandon.